DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, 20 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting from the source relay node to a donor access node.
The apparatus and the method claim 1, 8 and 14 recites limitation, “transmitting first information indicating a first power class associated with a first maximum output power on a first carrier; determining a delta power class associated with the first power class on the first carrier, wherein the delta power class is a power offset for the first power class; and transmitting second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites transmitting first information indicating a first power class; determining a delta power class associated with the first power class on the first carrier, and transmitting second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report. The transmitting information, determining delta power class associated with the first power class… and then transmitting second information recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of collecting data, analyzing and then transmitting certain information i.e., "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
However, if applicant add limitation from claim 6, 13 and 19 into independent form then the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application.
Further, other dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. Pub. No. US 20190268862 A1 in view of Marupaduga Pub. No. US 20220046554 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Dai teaches a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 21 and Para 364, UE) comprising: a transceiver (Fig. 21 Unit 130 and Para 364, transmitter 130) configured to transmit first information indicating a first power class associated with a first maximum output power on a first carrier (Para 225 and Fig. 8 Step 803, UE reports the determined initial maximum uplink transmit power to each base station i.e., transmit first information indicating a first power class associated with a first maximum output power on a first carrier); and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver (Fig. 21 and Para 364, The memory 120, transmitter 130, and receiver 140 are connected to the processor 110 by using a bus i.e., a processor operably coupled to the transceiver), the processor configured to determine a delta power class associated with the first power class on the first carrier wherein the delta power class is a power offset for the first power class, (Fig. 18 Unit 72 and Para 325-327, status reporting module 72 includes power offset determining unit 721 and transmit power determining unit 722. The power offset determining unit 721 is configured to determine an offset of an uplink transmit power according to the status of the uplink resource that is scheduled by the second base station for the UE, where a value of the offset is preconfigured, or is delivered by the second base station by using network signaling. The transmit power determining unit 722 is configured to add the offset to an initial maximum uplink transmit power that is allocated by the UE to the first base station, and determine that a sum of the offset and the initial maximum uplink transmit power is the maximum uplink transmit power allocated by the UE to the first base station i.e., determine a delta power class associated with the first power class on the first carrier wherein the delta power class is a power offset for the first power class).
Dai teaches that a transmit power of a carrier corresponding to the base station may be adjusted according to an actual situation, so that resources of each carrier can all be used maximally, which improves transmission efficiency of uplink data and a throughput of the UE. It is understandable that the power headroom may also be calculated by the UE and reported to the first base station which can be read as transceiver is further configured to transmit second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report (Para 158) but Dai does not specifically teach
wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marupaduga teaches UE's ability to increment its transmit power, however, could be limited by a defined maximum transmit power level (e.g., maximum average transmit power level), e.g., a spectral absorption rate (SAR) limit, which could be established based on a power class of the UE for instance. Industry standards or governmental regulations define various UE power classes, and UEs could be characterized by their manufacturing specifications or other data to be a member of one power class or another. Without limitation, examples of such power classes include Power Class 2, defining a maximum transmit power of 23 dBm (about 200 milliwatts), and Power Class 3, defining a maximum transmit power of 26 dBm (about 400 milliwatts) (Para 17 and then further teaches from Fig. 2 Step 34 and Para 93 that determining, based at least on a power headroom of the UE on the first connection and a power headroom of the UE on the second connection, an uplink data apportionment defining what portion of the uplink data flow the UE should provide on the first connection versus what portion of the uplink data flow the UE should provide on the second connection i.e., transceiver is further configured to transmit second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dai with the method of Marupaduga so that the UE within coverage of the system could engage in air interface communication with an access node and could thereby communicate via the access node with various application servers and other entities (See Marupaduga Para 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Dai teaches wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) providing a DCI format that includes a request to report the second information (Para 137).
Regarding Claim 5, Dai teaches wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit third information for a set of duty cycles associated with a set of power classes for a corresponding set of carriers (Para 265).
Regarding Claim 7, Dai teaches wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit the uplink physical channel using the first power after the time period (Para 190).
Regarding Claim 8, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further Dai teaches a base station (BS) comprising (Fig. 19 and Para 337): a transceiver configured to receive (Fig. 19 and Para 337, irst base station 800 may further include a transmitter 83 and a receiver 84).
Regarding Claim 11, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 18, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 20, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, 10, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. Pub. No. US 20190268862 A1 in view of Marupaduga Pub. No. US 20220046554 A1 and further in view of Iwai et al. Pub. No. US 20210168732 A1
Regarding Claim 2, Dai and Marupaduga does not specifically teach the transceiver is further configured to transmit third information indicating a duty cycle; and the processor is further configured to determine a transmission occasion for transmitting the second information based on the duty cycle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Iwai teaches PHR_data report determination section 105 determines whether or not to report the PHR_pusch output from PHR_data calculation section 104, to a base station, based on cycle T [ms] determined by the base station in advance. That is, in the case where more than T [ms] has passed from the previous report of PHR_pusch, PHR_pusch will be reported, and in the case where more than T [ms] has not passed from the previous report of PHR_pusch, PHR_pusch will not be reported. Upon determining to report PHR_pusch, PHR_data report determination section 105 outputs PHR_pusch to data generation section 109 i.e., the transceiver is further configured to transmit third information indicating a duty cycle; and the processor is further configured to determine a transmission occasion for transmitting the second information based on the duty cycle (Para 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dai with the method of Marupaduga and further in view of Iwai so as to prevent deterioration of performance of a PUCCH which require high quality thus transmission power of a PUSCH to be transmitted by a mobile station does not exceed the maximum transmission power of the mobile station (See Iwai Para 5 and 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Dai and Marupaduga does not specifically teach the transceiver is further configured to transmit third information indicating a duty cycle, the duty cycle is associated with more than one power classes on corresponding more than one carriers, and the delta power class is further associated with the more than one power classes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Iwai teaches that the mobile station 100 is in the FDM transmission mode, when base station 200 obtains trigger information reported from mobile station 100 by satisfying equation 6, transmission mode control section 210 appropriately switches the transmission mode of mobile station 100 from the FDM transmission mode to the TDM transmission mode i.e., transmit third information indicating a duty cycle, the duty cycle is associated with more than one power classes on corresponding more than one carriers. In the condition where mobile station 100 reports trigger information in the FDM transmission mode, by switching the transmission mode to the TDM transmission mode, it is possible to prevent transmission power of mobile station 100 from exceeding the maximum transmission power (P_max). The cycle i.e., the duty cycle in which mobile station 100 reports PHR_pusch, first, because the uses of PHR_pusch and PHR_pucch are different, by reporting PHR_pusch or PHR_pucch according to the frequency and accuracy corresponding to the use, it is possible to suppress increase of signaling overhead and appropriately switch the transmission mode at the same time. As the use of PHR_pusch, PHR_pusch is used to control the transmission bandwidth and MCS of a PUSCH so that transmission power does not exceed the maximum transmission power of mobile station 100 (Para 96-98).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dai with the method of Marupaduga and further in view of Iwai so as to prevent deterioration of performance of a PUCCH which require high quality thus transmission power of a PUSCH to be transmitted by a mobile station does not exceed the maximum transmission power of the mobile station (See Iwai Para 5 and 6).
Regarding Claim 9, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 15, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 16, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 13 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art reference fail to teach the limitation of “a time period associated with a validity of the second information, a second maximum output power based on the first maximum output power and the delta power class, and a first power based on the first maximum output power and a second power based on the second maximum output power; and the transceiver is further configured to transmit: third information associated with the time period, and an uplink physical channel using the second power during the time period”. These limitations in combination of other elements are neither found nor disclosed in prior art as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 9/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that rejection under 35 USC 101 should be respectfully traversed as claims are not directed towards mental process and suggest that these are radio-frequency operations physically performed by a transceiver over a wireless air interface, not operations that can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. A human cannot transmit a radio frequency signal on a carrier or generate and transmit a power headroom report over a cellular wireless network and therefore, claim 1 is not directed to the alleged mental-process abstract idea. However, examiner disagrees. MPEP clearly states (see specifically 2106.04 (a)(2) III C where it clearly explain claims that require a computer may still recite a mental process and suggest that Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Therefore, suggesting in the claim that UE transceiver to transmit … first information …. and transmitting second information can be performed in human mind and can be considered to recite a mental process. For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is arguing Step 2A, Prong One, that claims do not recite generic data collection and transmission. Rather, they recite specific radio operations i.e., transmitting first information indicating a first power class associated with a first maximum output power on a first carrier, determining a delta power class as a power offset for the first power class and transmitting second information indicating the delta power class in the power headroom report and suggest that these operation are rooted in cellular wireless communication technology and require a transceiver physically capable of transmitting on a carrier frequency. However, examiner disagree and bring applicant attention to the MPEP (see specifically 2106.04 (a)(2) III A) Mental Process where it is clearly defined that claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In the current scenario tranciever configured to transmit which can be refer to as collecting information, the processor configured to determine delta power refer to as analyzing step and then transmit second information refer to as outputting or displaying certain results. Since they perform same steps as show Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) therefore, the claimed subject matter is a mental process or abstract idea under step 2A, Prong One.
Applicant is arguing that Step 2A, Prong Two is a specific technology improvement to the functioning of the wireless communication system and thus integrated into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. Step 2A, Prong Two discloses identify whether the claim recites any additional elements beyond the judicial exception, and evaluate those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the consideration in MPEP 2106 (a-h). Court has found indicative of additional elements may have integrated the exception into a practical application includes An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the current scenario determination of delta power class does not indicate that an additional element may have integrated the exception into practical application. However, if applicant adds limitation from claim 6 into independent form, then the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application. Currently applicant does not recite that limitation and for at least the above reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is arguing that Dai does not teach “transmitting first information indicating a first power class” as recited in the claim. However, examiner would like to bring it to the attention of the applicant that during patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111). Further to that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Having said that Dai teaches and as explained above that UE reports the determined initial maximum uplink transmit power to each base station i.e., transmit first information indicating a first power associated with a first maximum output power on a first carrier (Para 225 and Fig. 8 Step 803) and then teaches that status reporting module 72 includes power offset determining unit 721 and transmit power determining unit 722. The power offset determining unit 721 is configured to determine an offset of an uplink transmit power according to the status of the uplink resource that is scheduled by the second base station for the UE, where the value of the offset is preconfigured, or is delivered by the second base station by using network signaling. The transmit power determining unit 722 is configured to add the offset to an initial maximum uplink transmit power that is allocated by the UE to the first base station, and determine that a sum of the offset and the initial maximum uplink transmit power is the maximum uplink transmit power allocated by the UE to the first base station i.e., determine a delta power associated with the first power on the first carrier wherein the delta power class is a power offset for the first power class (Fig. 18 Unit 72 and Para 325-327).
Dai does not specifically teach power is a transmit power and
wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report. However, Marupaduga teaches that UE's ability to increment its transmit power, however, could be limited by a defined maximum transmit power level (e.g., maximum average transmit power level), e.g., a spectral absorption rate (SAR) limit, which could be established based on a power class of the UE for instance. Industry standards or governmental regulations define various UE power classes, and UEs could be characterized by their manufacturing specifications or other data to be a member of one power class or another. Without limitation, examples of such power classes include Power Class 2, defining a maximum transmit power of 23 dBm (about 200 milliwatts), and Power Class 3, defining a maximum transmit power of 26 dBm (about 400 milliwatts) (Para 17). Further, Marupaduga teaches from Fig. 2 Step 34 and Para 93 that determining, based at least on a power headroom of the UE on the first connection and a power headroom of the UE on the second connection, an uplink data apportionment defining what portion of the uplink data flow the UE should provide on the first connection versus what portion of the uplink data flow the UE should provide on the second connection i.e., transceiver is further configured to transmit second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report. For at least the above reasons and by replacing one known element with other current reference reads on applicant claimed invention and for that reasons the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is further arguing that Dai does not disclose “the delta power is a power offset for the first power class”. However, as explained above, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Having said that Marapaduga teaches the above limitation in combination of Dai and replacing one known element with other current reference reads on applicant claimed invention and for that reasons the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is arguing that reference fail to teach “wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report. However, as explained above that during patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111). Further to that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Having said that Marupaduga teaches from power class in Para 17 and then on Para 18 disclose the UE may therefore have a variable level of “power headroom” that defines the difference between (i) the UE's currently set transmit power level based on the power control process and (ii) the UE's maximum transmit power. Further, Fig. 2 Step 34 and Para 93 that determining, based at least on a power headroom of the UE on the first connection and a power headroom of the UE on the second connection, an uplink data apportionment defining what portion of the uplink data flow the UE should provide on the first connection versus what portion of the uplink data flow the UE should provide on the second connection i.e., transceiver is further configured to transmit second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report. For at least the above reasons and by replacing one known element with other current reference reads on applicant claimed invention and for those reasons the rejection is maintained.
If Applicant still does not agree with the examiner, Nokia et al.: RAN 1 Impact for power domain enhancements” 3GPP Draft, R1-2210166, R1-2210166 Sept 30, 2022 (Reference in IDS) reads on applicant claimed invention (see specifically Sec 2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
